kaiten_list_removed_cards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a notable non-obvious behavior: the endpoint may return 405 and may not be available. However, it does not mention whether this operation is read-only, what the response shape looks like, or any pagination or error-handling details beyond the 405 caveat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the purpose and resource, and the second adds a critical reliability caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the key information immediately visible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity list operation with two fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate context: it names the resource, the source location, and a key failure mode. An output schema is absent, so a bit more detail about the returned card shape could help, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, formats, or defaults, which keeps this at the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('removed (deleted) cards'), and a specific scope ('from the recycle bin'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_list_cards and kaiten_list_removed_boards, since the target is deleted cards rather than active ones.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving deleted cards from the recycle bin, which gives the agent a clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as kaiten_list_cards, kaiten_list_all_cards, or kaiten_list_removed_boards, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.